World Families Forums - Different genetic perspectives on human history in Europe and the Caucasus

ARCHIVAL COPY

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, more with Isidro -- you quoted him, but he's the one who said

Quote

I don't see why not treat Q Celtic in Iberia as arriving the same route Maritime.1000BC or 2k or 3k BC or whenever.

However I sort of agree with his highlighting of maritime, and if that's what we are talking about (one of several variables here), finding overland stopovers for something that did not move overland might be a point of contention.

While I have your attention (Mike), my 111 markers have almost all been reported, and I'd like to start looking for off-modals in the numbers above 67. I'm pretty sure those are not covered in Y-search, right? So, where would I look for the extended Z196 modal? Or, which are the interesting markers (DYS710 and above) for a DF27+ Z196+ Z209+ Z220+ Z216- guy to look at? ...

You can see the current Z196 modal for 111 markers by going to the Haplotype_Data_R-P312xL21 spreadsheet ExtHts tab/worksheet and selecting just Z196.

Excellent! then we have part of this settled: R1a is not likely to have brought IE to R1b in Western Europe. Now we just need a closer examination of R-L23*.

Also, a closer examination of the P312 subclades, we know the British Islands are L21 dominated, and U152 is big in Italy+Austria+Switzerland combo. In previous studies I observed that P312*, that is P312(xL21,U152) was big in Iberia compared to other places, I mean from 2 to 3 times that of other places. Now we know that Z196 is a big player in that P312*, so a comprehensive study of Iberia that tests all the new SNPs shall shed some light into whether there is a differentiation in the P312 clades in Iberia that arises from the Z196 downstream level, or is it upstream.

It's a bit weird that a grandson of R-L23, R-L11 (the Western European man who was non IE speaking) became, far and away, the dominant Y haplogroup in Western Europe IE speaking territories. I wonder how that happened that L11 learned IE from his grandfather or g-grandfather R-L23+ L11- ancestor (via an L11- cousin)? I guess we need to look closer at R-L23*.

Parsimonious?

Other scenarios remain likely possible, there could have been an earlier wave of non-IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51) bearers who gave rise to L51, L11, et al, followed by a latter wave of IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51). I don’t know, perhaps the lactase persistence was something linked to the R group, and those distantly remote R1b-L150+ cousins sitting in Western Europe, were able to blend in nicely with the IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51) travelers from the East, as they were both capable of drinking milk, and maybe the R1b-L150+ folks learned pastoralism from there. There must have been some sort of selective advantage, we know that the G2a folks thus far discovered along with E-V13, and I2a were all lactose intolerant, or at least very likely to be lactose intolerant. In a sense some aDNA study from SJAPL in terms of their y-DNA could shed some light into the issue, as that population was already on its way of becoming lactose tolerant, and had quite a significant level of lactose tolerance for 5000 ybp Europe.

It's previously been suggested that the people with lactase persistence might also have had antibodies for the usually non-fatal cowpox, that gave them an advantage in surviving smallpox. Then the older population might have been selectively thinned by a smallpox outbreak that was survived by the R1b newcomers.

Something along those lines (and often involving smallpox) happened to many Native American tribes, especially those nearer the east coast.

Excellent! then we have part of this settled: R1a is not likely to have brought IE to R1b in Western Europe. Now we just need a closer examination of R-L23*.

Also, a closer examination of the P312 subclades, we know the British Islands are L21 dominated, and U152 is big in Italy+Austria+Switzerland combo. In previous studies I observed that P312*, that is P312(xL21,U152) was big in Iberia compared to other places, I mean from 2 to 3 times that of other places. Now we know that Z196 is a big player in that P312*, so a comprehensive study of Iberia that tests all the new SNPs shall shed some light into whether there is a differentiation in the P312 clades in Iberia that arises from the Z196 downstream level, or is it upstream.

It's a bit weird that a grandson of R-L23, R-L11 (the Western European man who was non IE speaking) became, far and away, the dominant Y haplogroup in Western Europe IE speaking territories. I wonder how that happened that L11 learned IE from his grandfather or g-grandfather R-L23+ L11- ancestor (via an L11- cousin)? I guess we need to look closer at R-L23*.

Parsimonious?

Other scenarios remain likely possible, there could have been an earlier wave of non-IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51) bearers who gave rise to L51, L11, et al, followed by a latter wave of IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51). I don’t know, perhaps the lactase persistence was something linked to the R group, and those distantly remote R1b-L150+ cousins sitting in Western Europe, were able to blend in nicely with the IE speaking R1b-L23(xL51) travelers from the East, as they were both capable of drinking milk, and maybe the R1b-L150+ folks learned pastoralism from there. There must have been some sort of selective advantage, we know that the G2a folks thus far discovered along with E-V13, and I2a were all lactose intolerant, or at least very likely to be lactose intolerant. In a sense some aDNA study from SJAPL in terms of their y-DNA could shed some light into the issue, as that population was already on its way of becoming lactose tolerant, and had quite a significant level of lactose tolerance for 5000 ybp Europe.

Slight correction - U152 is not very frequent in Austria. It is most frequent in Northern Italy, Switzerland, Central Italy, Corsica and Eastern France.

As for your theories, they make sense to me now but seem entirely too complex. I think important areas of P312+ were non-IE speaking at the time of the Roman expansion, but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?) or post P312 arriving peoples (Etruscans?).

As for your theories, they make sense to me now but seem entirely too complex. I think important areas of P312+ were non-IE speaking at the time of the Roman expansion, but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?) or post P312 arriving peoples (Etruscans?).

I don’t think they are any more complex than the other hypotheses running around the web, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, so I respect yours. What did you mean when you said:

“…but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?)”

As for your theories, they make sense to me now but seem entirely too complex. I think important areas of P312+ were non-IE speaking at the time of the Roman expansion, but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?) or post P312 arriving peoples (Etruscans?).

I don’t think they are any more complex than the other hypotheses running around the web, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, so I respect yours. What did you mean when you said:

“…but only because of its fragmented spread and assimilation with pre-existing (Basques?)”

L11+ lineages seem to be fragmented across continental Western Europe. I think some L11 groups introduced IE languages to certain areas (i.e. British Isles) whereas others simply took up the local languages (i.e. Aquitania), although the latter scenario would be in the minority.

Of course that is an oversimplification. The classic example is the IE speaking Romans who lived under the rule of the non-IE speaking Etruscans for centuries. If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.

If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.

History is a science and should be studied and known.1) We have more than 13,000 Etruscan documents, many short, but others that tell their history beyond the Latin documents.2) The last Etruscan King was expelled from Rome on 509BC. But Romans were at least one third of Etruscan descent, as their surnames demonstrate (Schulze, Zur Lateinischen und Etruskischen Eigenamen).

L11+ lineages seem to be fragmented across continental Western Europe. I think some L11 groups introduced IE languages to certain areas (i.e. British Isles) whereas others simply took up the local languages (i.e. Aquitania), although the latter scenario would be in the minority.

Well that does posit some questions. Mainly if you assume L11+ lineages were IE speaking, then the following contradiction arises:

1-Ireland, 90%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-L21), the R1b-L11+ people introduce IE languages, while overturning the language of the previous populations there.

2- Basque Country, 80%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-P312(xL21,U152)), the R1b-L11+ people fail to introduce IE languages from the people who were there before.

Again, why would they effectively impose their new language over Ireland, attainting both linguistic and haplogroup dominance, yet only attaining haplogroup dominance in Aquitania/Basque Country, but not linguistic dominance. We know that R1b-L21 wasn’t born in the Basque Country, or it very unlikely to have been born there, so that means that there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country, if all of them were IndoEuropean speaking, then what gives, all of them decided to take up the local language, while imposing their language elsewhere. Uhmm, Occam’s razor would say otherwise, a more likely explanation is that the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) folks were nonIE speaking, whereas the R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 folks were.

Of course that is an oversimplification. The classic example is the IE speaking Romans who lived under the rule of the non-IE speaking Etruscans for centuries. If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.

But what haplogroup can be linked to the Etruscans, I mean Tuscany doesn’t look like an outlier in terms of their y-DNA haplogroups, perhaps you can provide some data in that regard, but they seem to be similar to their neighbors.

If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.

History is a science and should be studied and known.1) We have more than 13,000 Etruscan documents, many short, but others that tell their history beyond the Latin documents.2) The last Etruscan King was expelled from Rome on 509BC. But Romans were at least one third of Etruscan descent, as their surnames demonstrate (Schulze, Zur Lateinischen und Etruskischen Eigenamen).

And for that reason, I've said many times that the Romans must have been a diverse Y-DNA group by the time they started their expansion. (with an R1b majority of course).

And for that reason, I've said many times that the Romans must have been a diverse Y-DNA group by the time they started their expansion. (with an R1b majority of course).

The prejudice that Etruscans came from Asia Minor is “die hard”. No archaeologist in Italy believes to-day to this. Your map of R-U152 demonstrates that there is no separation between Ligurians and Etruscans. I have said in another thread that probably in Italy were present from very ancient times a Caucasian language (Sardinian, etc) an Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun intermediate between Caucasian and Indo-European and the same Indo-European. At a genetic level there were probably different haplogroups, developed by founder effect and genetic drift, but it seems that Indo-Europeans were above all hg. R1b1 and subclades. This explains probably why Western Sicily, where Indo-European languages were spoken (Elymian, Sican and Sicilian), has a high percentage of hg. R., from the most ancient R1b1a2* (LoPiccolo), to many R-L23* I found close to my Sicilian relatives on 23andme, to your R-U152.

L11+ lineages seem to be fragmented across continental Western Europe. I think some L11 groups introduced IE languages to certain areas (i.e. British Isles) whereas others simply took up the local languages (i.e. Aquitania), although the latter scenario would be in the minority.

Well that does posit some questions. Mainly if you assume L11+ lineages were IE speaking, then the following contradiction arises:

1-Ireland, 90%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-L21), the R1b-L11+ people introduce IE languages, while overturning the language of the previous populations there.

2- Basque Country, 80%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-P312(xL21,U152)), the R1b-L11+ people fail to introduce IE languages from the people who were there before.

Again, why would they effectively impose their new language over Ireland, attainting both linguistic and haplogroup dominance, yet only attaining haplogroup dominance in Aquitania/Basque Country, but not linguistic dominance. We know that R1b-L21 wasn’t born in the Basque Country, or it very unlikely to have been born there, so that means that there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country, if all of them were IndoEuropean speaking, then what gives, all of them decided to take up the local language, while imposing their language elsewhere. Uhmm, Occam’s razor would say otherwise, a more likely explanation is that the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) folks were nonIE speaking, whereas the R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 folks were.

Of course that is an oversimplification. The classic example is the IE speaking Romans who lived under the rule of the non-IE speaking Etruscans for centuries. If the Romans hadn't written about this event, nobody would ever have known about it. Since R1b is 50% in Central Italy, it's anybody's guess what Italians would be speaking today (or the rest of Europe for that matter) if the Romans hadn't overthrown the Etruscan kings 2,000+ years ago.

But what haplogroup can be linked to the Etruscans, I mean Tuscany doesn’t look like an outlier in terms of their y-DNA haplogroups, perhaps you can provide some data in that regard, but they seem to be similar to their neighbors.

I'm assuming you are Basque, because nobody else could possibly apply Occam’s Razor to Basque P312+ and not notice that it is clearly trumped by Irish P312 which not only has more frequency, but has no debate as to its IE language.

A trickling of people over an extended period of time (think of Mexican-Indian Y-DNA crossing the USA border over the last 50 years) can certainly replace Y-DNA and not change the language. Want more proof? 82.7% of the Detroit population is African American. What language do they speak? English. You think that is the language their ggggg-grandparents spoke? I think not.

L11+ lineages seem to be fragmented across continental Western Europe. I think some L11 groups introduced IE languages to certain areas (i.e. British Isles) whereas others simply took up the local languages (i.e. Aquitania), although the latter scenario would be in the minority.

Well that does posit some questions. Mainly if you assume L11+ lineages were IE speaking, then the following contradiction arises:

1-Ireland, 90%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-L21), the R1b-L11+ people introduce IE languages, while overturning the language of the previous populations there.

2- Basque Country, 80%+ R1b-L11+(Mainly R1b-P312(xL21,U152)), the R1b-L11+ people fail to introduce IE languages from the people who were there before.

Again, why would they effectively impose their new language over Ireland, attainting both linguistic and haplogroup dominance, yet only attaining haplogroup dominance in Aquitania/Basque Country, but not linguistic dominance. We know that R1b-L21 wasn’t born in the Basque Country, or it very unlikely to have been born there, so that means that there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country, if all of them were IndoEuropean speaking, then what gives, all of them decided to take up the local language, while imposing their language elsewhere. Uhmm, Occam’s razor would say otherwise, a more likely explanation is that the R1b-P312(xL21,U152) folks were nonIE speaking, whereas the R1b-L21, and R1b-U152 folks were....

JeanL, I don't know if you realize this but I think you gave the logic to show exactly why the Basques may have some uniqueness in having a lot of R1b lineages but aren't IE speakers.

You said "there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country". That is a very good point you make as I think there are indications of this just as you pointed out.

Several smaller waves of new people over an extended period of time would be less likely to change the language in a population versus an initial massive influx of new people. Perhaps the proto-Basques stayed intact in protected geographies or possibly through inter-marriage alliances. Slowly dominant lineages were brought in, but never a single dosage heavy enough to tip the language balance.

I applaud you for taking a look under the covers to see that frequency, such as high R1b frequency in Basques, could be misleading. The R1b subclades could have come in, in layers and we would not need to expect the language change. Believe it or not, that has been lost on me so I really do thank you JeanL for bringing this to light. Excellent indeed! We now have it settled that R1a wouldn't have taught Western European R1b IE languages and we have one fairly direct line of reasoning that explains why an R1b majority population might not speak IE.

(EDIT: I see Rocca beat me in posting the concept of immigration waves and language impact. I'm just a little slow witted I suppose.)

Basque survived because was in a mountainous zone. For the same reason Albanian survived and no other Illyrian language. Also in ancient Italy survived the language of the Stele of Novilara, probably the most ancient survived Celt language of the Italo- Celt unity with languages of only two other stocks: Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun and Italic.The Illyrian languages of Puglia came of course from the Balkans. The other languages (Greek, Punic) are recent documented income. If Sardinian were survived, we probably would have had a Caucasian language survived also in Italy, but some Caucasian language was spoken probably also in the Alps.Ancient world, and much more the more we go back in time, was very fragmented.

..... We know that R1b-L21 wasn’t born in the Basque Country, or it very unlikely to have been born there, so that means that there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country....

...Several smaller waves of new people over an extended period of time would be less likely to change the language in a population versus an initial massive influx of new people. Perhaps the proto-Basques stayed intact in protected geographies or possibly through inter-marriage alliances. Slowly dominant lineages were brought in, but never a single dosage heavy enough to tip the language balance.

A very nice model is coming together to explain the massive R1b frequencies in Western IE speaking lands with limited L23* input and even less R1a input. At the same time, we have an explanation for the Basque non-IE speaking anomaly.

R1b-L23* and R1b-L11 folks are related and at least large elements probably spoke the same languages, which may evolved on the western fringes of a PIE homeland. For whatever reasons, these folks were very aggressive in their explorations but also seemed to generally follow suit with changing of cultures over to Bronze Age IE practices all across Europe. They were more successful the further west they went. It could be the folks there just weren't as advanced as the folks R1b had to deal with in SE Europe and the Near East and their R1a brothers to the east.

However, as explorers and colonizers, the IE groups that carried R1b (along with others no doubt) west were not one massive wave. It took time, with fits and starts to establish colonies ever westward. Over time, in most places their hegemony effected change to the prior inhabitants, but not in every location nor was the integration the same in every location.

Relax, this is just a supposition. There is no proof. It is just food for thought.

I'm assuming you are Basque, because nobody else could possibly apply Occam’s Razor to Basque P312+ and not notice that it is clearly trumped by Irish P312 which not only has more frequency, but has no debate as to its IE language.

Yes good assumption, my lineage is Basque, now what does that have to do with Occam’s Razor. Irish P312+ is mostly L21, Basque P312+ is mostly P312(xL21,U152), that is the difference, P312(xL21,U152) reaches frequencies above 55% in all Basque minus Alavans. So once more, If we assume that all L11+ was IE speaking why would the conquerors forget their language once they reached the Basque Country and Aquitania, after all, they were superior enough as to impose their genetic mark, I mean L11+ reaches frequencies above 80%+ in all Basques. On the other hand, they reached Ireland, England, France places that were equally populated by pre-R1b people, and not only did they impose their genetic mark, but also their language. Yeah, doesn’t sound like we are talking about the same people. A better explanation would be that Z196 which was likely born in Iberia was one of the branches of P312 that was nonIE speaking, whereas L21, and U152 both born in Central Europe, or in France, and in contact with IE speaking people learned the language and expanded from there.

A trickling of people over an extended period of time (think of Mexican-Indian Y-DNA crossing the USA border over the last 50 years) can certainly replace Y-DNA and not change the language. Want more proof? 82.7% of the Detroit population is African American. What language do they speak? English. You think that is the language their ggggg-grandparents spoke? I think not.

How exactly the Basque language survived is anyone's guess.

You really want to use the African American example? English was imposed to them by their White masters, are you saying that Euskera was imposed to mighty IE speaking warriors who conquered half of Asia, and all of Europe, and even Aquitania and the Basque Country, but somehow had another language imposed to them once they reached Aquitania, Eastern Iberia, and the Basque Country. If that doesn’t sound strange to you, then it sure as h__l sounds strange to me. Of course, it is always good to just ignore the Basques, or the other nonIE(pre-Roman) speaking folks who seem to be high on R1b, that is what an Ad Hoc approach does, ignore the unwanted data.

JeanL, I don't know if you realize this but I think you gave the logic to show exactly why the Basques may have some uniqueness in having a lot of R1b lineages but aren't IE speakers.

You said "there were several waves of R1b-P312+ to the Basque Country". That is a very good point you make as I think there are indications of this just as you pointed out.

Well it is possible that Z196 was born in the vicinity of the Basque Country, so in fact the only wave would be L21+ people, I was simply going by the assumptions made by Richard Rocca that all L11+ is Bronze Age, and IE speaking, and newcomers.

Several smaller waves of new people over an extended period of time would be less likely to change the language in a population versus an initial massive influx of new people. Perhaps the proto-Basques stayed intact in protected geographies or possibly through inter-marriage alliances. Slowly dominant lineages were brought in, but never a single dosage heavy enough to tip the language balance.

The thing is that in the time frame that most of you adhere for the arrival of IE speaking L11+ to Western Europe, there seems to be not enough time for a haplogroup to undergo genetic drift. Which is basically what you are claiming, that the P312+ folks came in little by little, yet somehow managed to have more kids that the “proto-basques”. What haplogroup were the “proto-basques” exactly then? I mean, so the L11+ IE speaking move to Ireland, and they manage to leave a significant impact on their genetic pool, and also impose their language, yet they move to Aquitania, and they can’t impose their language. So you actually think that my hypothesis of R1b-P312 being nonIE speaking is far too complex, but Basques receiving two influxes of IE speaking people Z196, and L21 has no effect on them, or their language. Sorry, but I simply do not buy that. Not to mention that in the Bronze Age period, while in Central Europe funerary practices of single burials were well under way, collective burials in caves, Megaliths were still the norm in the Basque regions.

I applaud you for taking a look under the covers to see that frequency, such as high R1b frequency in Basques, could be misleading. The R1b subclades could have come in, in layers and we would not need to expect the language change.

Again see above, I recommend you read up a bit about Basque prehistory, and specially about genetic drift. Drift occurs heavily in population with low effective population size, no European population during the Bronze age could experience drift, so it is highly unlikely that layers of R1b did that. Moreover, if it was layers, one should expect to see R1b-U152 to be as big as L21, or Z196, after all if they all came as very small groups, they all have the same chance in drift, yet Z196 is 2 to 3 times the amount of L21, and 10 times the amount of U152. Again makes no sense.

Believe it or not, that has been lost on me so I really do thank you JeanL for bringing this to light. Excellent indeed! We now have it settled that R1a wouldn't have taught Western European R1b IE languages and we have one fairly direct line of reasoning that explains why an R1b majority population might not speak IE.

(EDIT: I see Rocca beat me in posting the concept of immigration waves and language impact. I'm just a little slow witted I suppose.)

Well , I do see the Steppe’s R1b-L23(xL51) as a major candidate for the arrival of PIE to Western Europe, however that doesn’t translate into L51+ being IE speaking.

I find the idea that L51 derived as non-IE and L23xL51 as IE a total contradiction of the modern reality. I think Mike has shown that L23xL51 is similar in age as L51-derived in most of Europe.

Here is a question - if you remove the relatively late P312 subclades in the Basque country, would it actually be so high in P312? Is the level not greatly raised by late local subclades? I understand about 10% of Basques are SRY2627 which is a fairly yound clade and also that Basque L21 is part of an even younger cluster. Those along could be responsible for the excess of p312 among Basques compared to their neighbours

Regarding Central Italy, Myres 2011 has M269 at 52.9%. If you take a look at the Capelli study, you will see that R1b is higher in all areas of Central Italy than the next haplogroup (J2) by a good amount.

As for using African-Americans as an example, it was an example of how genetics don't always align with language and visa-versa.

You seemed to have disregarded my Mexican-Indian Y-DNA example quite nicely. By the way, they carry subclades of haplgroup Q that are as diverse as L21 and DF27, so there goes you theory that it is not likely in the Basque Country because Basques are made up of different SNPs, which by the way have the same modal values across 67 markers.

Sorry, but the only one who seems t think yours is the better explanation is "the better explanation" seems to be you, and now that I know you are Basque it makes sense.

I find the idea that L51 derived as non-IE and L23xL51 as IE a total contradiction of the modern reality. I think Mike has shown that L23xL51 is similar in age as L51-derived in most of Europe.

I'm not sure about that(That in Europe L23xL51 has about the same age as L51+). Also, it is not L23xL51 non IE, and L51+ IE. I said it before, L23xL51 is nonIE, Neolithic comes by an some L23xL51 ends up in Western Europe, or somewhere in Europe, likely to the West. L23xL51 also heads to the Steppe, over there it learns PIE along with R1a, by the process that is commonly known. Meanwhile L23xL51 in Europe develops into L51 and retains its ancient language. Something(Megalithism, Bell Beaker, etc) makes L51, or its decendant L11 expand circa 4000 to 5000 ybp, some of them make it to Eastern Europe, in there R1b-U106 makes it debut. P312 was likely the byproduct of Beaker expansions, while one could argue that L11+ was early Beaker. Then in the mean time you get the arrival of L23xL51 cousins from the Steppe who bring IE languages along with R1a. The contact zone of L23xL51 and L51+ is in Central Europe, so P312 subclades born in Central Europe, and maybe most of France(Minus Southwestern France) learn IE languages, some of them do expansions on their own(i.e. L21, U152), which could be linked to the Urnfield Culture, or the Italo-Celtic languages.

Here is a question - if you remove the relatively late P312 subclades in the Basque country, would it actually be so high in P312? Is the level not greatly raised by late local subclades? I understand about 10% of Basques are SRY2627 which is a fairly yound clade and also that Basque L21 is part of an even younger cluster. Those along could be responsible for the excess of p312 among Basques compared to their neighbours

Well SRY2627 is pretty high in Catalonia, and its phylogenetic position places it inside the Z196 haplogroup, so I don’t see why it ought to be removed. But if you are interested in the percentages of P312(xL21+,U152+,SRY2627), well here you go from Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012:

Some of these disputes could be settled by the recovery of ancient y-dna in the right contexts. Barring that, it would take a truly comprehensive study of Eurasian R1b, including all of its major subdivisions.

I suspect R-M269 in various forms progressed in more or less continuous fashion from SE to NW across Europe and within a reasonably restricted time frame, as opposed to part arriving very early and getting cut off from its eastern cousins by the influx of Near Eastern farmers.

Europe west of a line running from the Baltic to the Black Sea is really not all that big a place, so the various eddyings of this and that clade's STR variance may not be as instructive as the overall R-M269 pattern.

As for non-IE languages in Europe, Basque seems the chief fly in the ointment for the idea that R-M269 was the vector for Indo-European. I suspect the Basques were originally not an R-M269 population but became that way over time. It wouldn't take waves of R-M269 conquerors to accomplish that: just a few successful R-M269 lineages versus greater "daughtering out" by xM269 lineages and enough time.

But that might be totally wrong, so let's get some truly ancient Basque y-dna - and enough of it - sometime soon.

Regarding Central Italy, Myres 2011 has M269 at 52.9%. If you take a look at the Capelli study, you will see that R1b is higher in all areas of Central Italy than the next haplogroup (J2) by a good amount.

Myres.et.al.2010 doesn’t sample Central Italy, she has North and South Italy, if you are referring to the data labeled as Italy, which coincidently shows 52.9% R1b-M269, then yeah, on a sample size of 34 people 52.9% shows R1b-M269. However on a sample size of 115 people from Central Italy only 33.9% showed R1b-M269. Sorry but 115/34=3.38 times bigger. So excuse me, if I find the results using a bigger sample size far more reliable.

As for using African-Americans as an example, it was an example of how genetics don't always align with language and visa-versa.

You really want to compare African slaves, brought to America against their will, living in a predominantly White society, or at least in a White dominated society, with your putative Indo-European L11+ invaders in the Aquitania. Why, would the people that have the upper hand, adapt to something else. Last time I checked the Afrikaans speak a Germanic dialect, they don’t speak Khoisan, so it is not the language of the majority, but the language of the ruling class. As for African Americans, well, the first generations likely spoke their native languages, then it was lost, just as German Americans spoke German, and Italian Americans spoke Italian once upon a time. Which brings me again to my point, you see people changing their languages to adapt to the language that prevails, I have yet to see how Euskera would give anyone any advantage in a pre-Roman Indo-European dominated Atlantic façade. So once more, why would the English who conquered America, move to South Africa and learn Khoisan, or the Dutch? Reality, they didn’t, they retained their own language.

You seemed to have disregarded my Mexican-Indian Y-DNA example quite nicely. By the way, they carry subclades of haplgroup Q that are as diverse as L21 and DF27, so there goes you theory that it is not likely in the Basque Country because Basques are made up of different SNPs, which by the way have the same modal values across 67 markers.

What theory about Mexican-Indian Y-DNA, I didn’t even understand what you were saying. Yes there are ~33 Million Mexicans here, well for starters Mexicans aren’t even mostly Q1a3a, but R1b-P312, but anyhow, do most of them speak English, yes, a good portion do, but a large segment also speaks Spanish. Have they affected the gene pool of America, well if you sample Mexican people indeed, but if you sample any other person, I don’t see why. Again, not really getting where you are getting at with the Mexican example. Also, what do you mean Basques have the same modal values across 67 markers? Would you care to expand on that, I mean, provide sample sizes, etc, are there any significant number of Basques on FTDNA as to provide any meaningful conclusions?

Sorry, but the only one who seems t think yours is the better explanation is "the better explanation" seems to be you, and now that I know you are Basque it makes sense.

Yes, indeed the good ole’ Ad Hominem, I’m Basque therefore I must be biased, so take anything I say with a grain of salt, etc. Yes “poisoning the well” also helps. Again, what we have seen from the advent of the phylogenetic tree of P312, is that British Islands is mostly L21+ with some minor R1b-U152, and R1b-Z196, France has gradients, but it is mostly a mixture of L21+ and U152 in terms of their P312+ derived clades. Move to Italy, Switzerland.et.al and you get into U152 territory, then there is SW France and Iberia being Z196 territory.

Central Italy - I had confirmed it with Natalie Myres when the paper came out, that's how I know.

Like I said in another post, R1a and R1b are two sides of the same PIE coin. Sure, it probably had its exceptions (Basques), but that is the only one that makes sense of what we know about West European linguistics, genetics and archaeology.